President Barak Obama and the mainstream media in the United States and Israel place the blame squarely on Hamas. It is true that a barrage of Palestinian rockets have been fired into Israel, and that ending this rocket fire is the stated goal of the current Israeli invasion of Gaza. However, this simplistic summary leaves out crucial facts. Consider this chain of events, which followed a "lull" of sorts over the previous couple of weeks:

· Nov. 4: Israel killed a mentally ill Palestinian walking near the Israeli-imposed "no-go zone" inside the Gaza Strip - an event that triggered a rocket from Gaza into southern Israel, which did not cause any deaths or injuries.

Nov. 8: Four Israeli military tanks and a bulldozer entered Gaza, fatally shooting a 13-year-old boy who had been playing soccer by his family's house.

Nov. 10: In retaliation, two rockets were fired from Gaza into southern Israel, and an anti-tank missile injured four soldiers, when it hit an Israeli army jeep that had crossed over into the territory. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights reported the killing of five more Palestinians, four of whom were civilians – including two soccer players age 16 and 17 and two young men (18 and 19) who ran to the scene. Forty-nine others were wounded, including 10 children.

Nov. 11: Amid talks of a truce, six more Palestinians (all but one were civilians) were wounded and another was killed by both air strikes and troops on the ground.

Nov. 12: With Israeli air strikes continuing, two rockets from Gaza hit Israel.

Nov. 13: After two mid-afternoon air strikes, news services announced a truce had been agreed-upon.

Nov. 14: Israel ignored the nascent truce and assassinated Hamas military chief Ahmad al-Jabari. (It is questionable whether Israeli officials ever really wanted a truce. As Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies wrote in The Nation: "Earlier this year, on the third anniversary of the Gaza assault of 2008/9, Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told Army Radio that Israel will need to attack Gaza again soon, to restore what he called its power of ‘deterrence.' He said the assault must be ‘swift and painful,' concluding, ‘we will act when the conditions are right.' Perhaps this was his chosen moment.")

A fact not known by most Americans, who see Jabari as merely a leader of "terrorists," is that Israeli activist Gershon Baskin confirmed that Jabari was engaged in peace settlement negotiations with Israel. In fact, he was due to send Hamas' version of a draft agreement to Baskin on the Wednesday evening before he was killed. It's worth asking: Did Israel intend to torpedo those efforts?

President Barak Obama and the mainstream media in the United States and Israel place the blame squarely on Hamas. It is true that a barrage of Palestinian rockets have been fired into Israel, and that ending this rocket fire is the stated goal of the current Israeli invasion of Gaza. However, this simplistic summary leaves out crucial facts. Consider this chain of events, which followed a "lull" of sorts over the previous couple of weeks:

· Nov. 4: Israel killed a mentally ill Palestinian walking near the Israeli-imposed "no-go zone" inside the Gaza Strip - an event that triggered a rocket from Gaza into southern Israel, which did not cause any deaths or injuries.

Nov. 8: Four Israeli military tanks and a bulldozer entered Gaza, fatally shooting a 13-year-old boy who had been playing soccer by his family's house.

Nov. 10: In retaliation, two rockets were fired from Gaza into southern Israel, and an anti-tank missile injured four soldiers, when it hit an Israeli army jeep that had crossed over into the territory. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights reported the killing of five more Palestinians, four of whom were civilians – including two soccer players age 16 and 17 and two young men (18 and 19) who ran to the scene. Forty-nine others were wounded, including 10 children.

Nov. 11: Amid talks of a truce, six more Palestinians (all but one were civilians) were wounded and another was killed by both air strikes and troops on the ground.

Nov. 12: With Israeli air strikes continuing, two rockets from Gaza hit Israel.

Nov. 13: After two mid-afternoon air strikes, news services announced a truce had been agreed-upon.

Nov. 14: Israel ignored the nascent truce and assassinated Hamas military chief Ahmad al-Jabari. (It is questionable whether Israeli officials ever really wanted a truce. As Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies wrote in The Nation: "Earlier this year, on the third anniversary of the Gaza assault of 2008/9, Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told Army Radio that Israel will need to attack Gaza again soon, to restore what he called its power of ‘deterrence.' He said the assault must be ‘swift and painful,' concluding, ‘we will act when the conditions are right.' Perhaps this was his chosen moment.")

A fact not known by most Americans, who see Jabari as merely a leader of "terrorists," is that Israeli activist Gershon Baskin confirmed that Jabari was engaged in peace settlement negotiations with Israel. In fact, he was due to send Hamas' version of a draft agreement to Baskin on the Wednesday evening before he was killed. It's worth asking: Did Israel intend to torpedo those efforts?

I think certain posters might be skeptical of the bolded part so I've provided a few articles.

Gershon Baskin, who helped mediate between Israel and Hamas in the deal to release Gilad Shalit, says Israel made a mistake that will cost the lives of 'innocent people on both sides.'

Hours before Hamas strongman Ahmed Jabari was assassinated, he received the draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel, which included mechanisms for maintaining the cease-fire in the case of a flare-up between Israel and the factions in the Gaza Strip.

Ahmed Jabari was a subcontractor, in charge of maintaining Israel's security in Gaza. This title will no doubt sound absurd to anyone who in the past several hours has heard Jabari described as "an arch-terrorist," "the terror chief of staff" or "our Bin Laden."

But that was the reality for the past five and a half years. Israel demanded of Hamas that it observe the truce in the south and enforce it on the multiplicity of armed organizations in the Gaza Strip. The man responsible for carrying out this policy was Ahmed Jabari.

In Syria, the administration is providing support and weapons to al-Qaeda and their sympathizers. Foreign fighters are streaming into Syria. The rebels are massacring Christians and other minorities, killing civilians, and perpetrating gross war crimes. We are supporting jihadists, just like in Kosov

Syrian rebels are massacring Christians and using terrorists bombings. It will end up like Libya. The Western media says the whole population is against the regime, yet over a year after the murder and rape of Gadaffi the government is still fighting people loyal to him.

HAMAS takes care to avoid civilian casualties. They target military bases and installations, not civilians. When there is a risk of hurting civilians, they call off the rocket strike. Unfortunately, sometimes there is collateral damage, because the IDF hides in apartments, synagogues, and hospitals to use innocents as human shields. Unfortunately, due to the actions of the terrorist government of Likud, the Israeli people are at the mercy of HAMAS rockets. It is unfortunate, but Israel bears the moral burden for this latest terror attack on Palestinian civilians.

Joined: 28 Jan 2003Location: It's not a superiority complex when you really are superior

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:41 pm Post subject:

comm wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Israel is NOT occupying Gaza it is BLOCKADING Gaza.

The Israeli government can call it whatever it likes, the U.N. still considers it to be occupation, as I wrote above. No amount of quotes from Israeli government officials is going to change that.
[

The U.N can call it what it likes. Pop quiz. How many Muslim/Arab states are there at the U.N? And how many Jewish states?

That's why the U.N claims occupation. Too bad the facts don't fit it.
There is no occupation in Gaza of buildings or territory by Israel. There is no continued military presence in Gazan territory.
Perhaps the U.N should read up on the definition of "occupied" instead of making up their own.

All makes perfect sense doesn't it?
Not going to discuss motives right now,but it would not be too difficult to guess what they are.

Remember where "Soviets bad, al-Qaeda good" got us?
Some of us would like to avoid that position in the future. We should stop giving financial/material support to either side in these small regional conflicts on the other side of the world. The U.S. would be a lot better off.

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

That's why the U.N claims occupation. Too bad the facts don't fit it.

Because locking down the borders of a sovereign territory with military force is actually a public service that the native population should appreciate, right? Using force to restrict the movement and imports of a population against their will is occupation, which is why you'll only find pro-Israel groups saying it isn't. And even if we say it isn't "occupation", it's still morally reprehensible oppression of the civilian population which requires a permanent and just solution.

Joined: 28 Jan 2003Location: It's not a superiority complex when you really are superior

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:31 pm Post subject:

comm wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

That's why the U.N claims occupation. Too bad the facts don't fit it.

Because locking down the borders of a sovereign territory with military force is actually a public service that the native population should appreciate, right? Using force to restrict the movement and imports of a population against their will is occupation, which is why you'll only find pro-Israel groups saying it isn't. .

I never said or implied it was a public service. Any reason you are attempting to mislead the conversation?

Using force to restrict the movement and imports of a population fits the definition of "blockade" much better than "occupation". Webster's is free online you can check it for yourself and see.

Once again the facts don't fit. Israel withdrew from Gaza years ago. It continues to blockade Gaza in an attempt to restrict the flow of materials Hamas and other militant groups use for their rockets. But they are not occupying Gaza in any real sense of the word. It's propaganda produced for the consumption of what the Soviet leader Lenin used to call "useful fools".

As far as oppression of the populace I can agree with you. Unfortunately until Hamas and the other groups agree to a permanent cease-fire there's not much Israel can do. No other state in the world would agree to take terrorist groups (which don't recognize it) into their territory. It would be like America allowing AQ groups immigration to the U.S. I don't see why Israel should be held to a higher standard.

All makes perfect sense doesn't it?
Not going to discuss motives right now,but it would not be too difficult to guess what they are.

Remember where "Soviets bad, al-Qaeda good" got us?
Some of us would like to avoid that position in the future. We should stop giving financial/material support to either side in these small regional conflicts on the other side of the world. The U.S. would be a lot better off.

Barring a fiasco involving heavy Israeli casualties, the operation should help Netanyahu coast to victory in the upcoming Israeli elections.

With Israeli elections just two months away, Netanyahu was already far ahead in the polls. The Gaza offensive has boosted his numbers further. According to Monday’s Haaretz poll, Netanyahu’s Likud Party would be the largest party in parliament and would have no trouble putting together another ruling coalition.

Netanyahu’s political prospects are also improved because his main opponents have even less military background than he does and they have been running a campaign that focused primarily on economic and social issues, and now the focus has been shifted back to security.

Another angle to the attack is the timing. The 2008 attack was held just 3 months before the general elections.

Now, four years later, elections are scheduled for January 2013, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to show that he is a tough guy. Whether it will really be accepted by a war weary Israeli public or not, time will tell.

All makes perfect sense doesn't it?
Not going to discuss motives right now,but it would not be too difficult to guess what they are.

Remember where "Soviets bad, al-Qaeda good" got us?
Some of us would like to avoid that position in the future. We should stop giving financial/material support to either side in these small regional conflicts on the other side of the world. The U.S. would be a lot better off.

In the beginning the Taliban numbered in the hundreds, were badly equipped and low on munitions. Within months however 15,000 students arrived from the madrassas in Pakistan.[51] The Taliban's first major military activity was in 1994, when they marched northward from Maiwand and captured Kandahar City and the surrounding provinces, losing only a few dozen men.[52] When they took control of Kandahar in 1994, they forced the surrender of dozens of local Pashtun leaders who had presided over a situation of complete lawlessness and atrocities.[52][53] The Taliban also took-over a border crossing at Spin Baldak and an ammunition dump from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In the course of 1994, the Taliban took control of 12 of 34 provinces not under central government control. Militias controlling the different areas often surrendered without a fight.[54] Omar's original commanders were "a mixture of former small-unit military commanders and madrassa teachers."[55]

According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,

The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[7]

In Syria, the administration is providing support and weapons to al-Qaeda and their sympathizers. Foreign fighters are streaming into Syria. The rebels are massacring Christians and other minorities, killing civilians, and perpetrating gross war crimes. We are supporting jihadists, just like in Kosov

Syrian rebels are massacring Christians and using terrorists bombings. It will end up like Libya. The Western media says the whole population is against the regime, yet over a year after the murder and rape of Gadaffi the government is still fighting people loyal to him.

HAMAS takes care to avoid civilian casualties. They target military bases and installations, not civilians. When there is a risk of hurting civilians, they call off the rocket strike. Unfortunately, sometimes there is collateral damage, because the IDF hides in apartments, synagogues, and hospitals to use innocents as human shields. Unfortunately, due to the actions of the terrorist government of Likud, the Israeli people are at the mercy of HAMAS rockets. It is unfortunate, but Israel bears the moral burden for this latest terror attack on Palestinian civilians.

Gaddafi good
Libyan rebels bad
Israel = The greatest evil in the world.

Syria's government good
Sudan's government good
Iran's government good

All makes perfect sense doesn't it?

Not going to discuss motives right now,but it would not be too difficult to guess what they are.

And what is your opinion?

You seem to be making the argument that if one poster is wrong about Syria's government being bad, then they are also wrong to say Israel's government is bad. That if Hamas is bad, then Israeli actions must be good.

There's plenty of badness to go around. And, regardless of what you think of Hamas, Israel has historically often been the one guilty of breaking ceasefires.

The Israeli government can call it whatever it likes, the U.N. still considers it to be occupation, as I wrote above. No amount of quotes from Israeli government officials is going to change that.
[

The U.N can call it what it likes. Pop quiz. How many Muslim/Arab states are there at the U.N? And how many Jewish states?

That's why the U.N claims occupation. Too bad the facts don't fit it.
There is no occupation in Gaza of buildings or territory by Israel. There is no continued military presence in Gazan territory.
Perhaps the U.N should read up on the definition of "occupied" instead of making up their own.

The facts don't fit your claim that Muslim/Arab states are responsible for the UN claim either. Israel and the U.S. are more or less the only ones who deny it.

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

As far as oppression of the populace I can agree with you. Unfortunately until Hamas and the other groups agree to a permanent cease-fire there's not much Israel can do. No other state in the world would agree to take terrorist groups (which don't recognize it) into their territory. It would be like America allowing AQ groups immigration to the U.S. I don't see why Israel should be held to a higher standard.

There is one thing Israel could do, which is to abide by ceasefires itself.

In the beginning the Taliban numbered in the hundreds, were badly equipped and low on munitions. Within months however 15,000 students arrived from the madrassas in Pakistan.[51] The Taliban's first major military activity was in 1994, when they marched northward from Maiwand and captured Kandahar City and the surrounding provinces, losing only a few dozen men.[52] When they took control of Kandahar in 1994, they forced the surrender of dozens of local Pashtun leaders who had presided over a situation of complete lawlessness and atrocities.[52][53] The Taliban also took-over a border crossing at Spin Baldak and an ammunition dump from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In the course of 1994, the Taliban took control of 12 of 34 provinces not under central government control. Militias controlling the different areas often surrendered without a fight.[54] Omar's original commanders were "a mixture of former small-unit military commanders and madrassa teachers."[55]

According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,

The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[7]

You seem to be making the argument that if one poster is wrong about Syria's government being bad, then they are also wrong to say Israel's government is bad. That if Hamas is bad, then Israeli actions must be good.

There's plenty of badness to go around. And, regardless of what you think of Hamas, Israel has historically often been the one guilty of breaking ceasefires.

My opinion is that actually I think some posters could care less about good or bad. They pretend that is what they care about but in truth they have something nefarious in mind.

Last edited by GENO123 on Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:30 am; edited 1 time in total